District
Judge Clark Waddoups referred this case to Chief Magistrate
Judge Paul M. Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A).[1] Before the court are (1) Plaintiff
Entrata, Inc.'s (“Entrata”) short form
discovery motion for a protective order regarding the
deposition of Preetam Yadav (“Mr.
Yadav”);[2] (2) Entrata's short form discovery
motion for a protective order regarding the deposition of
David Bateman (“Mr. Bateman”);[3] (3) Entrata's
short form discovery motion for a protective order regarding
the depositions of William Chaney (“Mr. Chaney”)
and Greg Lozinak (“Mr. Lozinak”);[4] (4) Defendant
Yardi System, Inc.'s (“Yardi”) short form
discovery motion to claw back Exhibit 473 and strike portions
of a deposition transcript;[5] and (5) Yardi's short form
discovery motion to compel production of technology assisted
review (“TA R ”) information from
Entrata.[6] The court has carefully reviewed the
written memoranda submitted by the parties. Pursuant to Civil
Rule 7-1(f) of the Rules of Practice for the United States
District Court for the District of Utah, the court has
concluded that oral argument is not necessary and will
determine the motions on the basis of the written memoranda.
See DUCivR 7-1(f).

ANALYSIS

Before
addressing the above-referenced motions, the court sets forth
the following general legal standards governing discovery.
Rule 26(b)(1) provides:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount
in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant
information, the parties' resources, the importance of
the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden
or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not
be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

I.
Entrata's Motion for a Protective Order Regarding the
Deposition of Mr. Yadav

Entrata
seeks a protective order barring the deposition of Mr. Yadav.
Entrata maintains that it is overly burdensome and expensive
to require Mr. Yadav to travel overseas from India for a
deposition. Entrata also asserts that Yardi has not
articulated any need for his testimony or identified any
topics upon which Yardi believes Mr. Yadav is more
knowledgeable than other Entrata deponents. Entrata further
argues that Yardi is seeking to depose Mr. Yadav to
“backdoor” discovery in separate case pending
between the parties in the Central District of California
(“California Case”).

For the
following reasons, the court concludes that Entrata's
arguments fail. First, the court is unpersuaded that
requiring Mr. Yadav to travel from India for a deposition
constitutes an undue burden or expense, considering the
likely benefit from allowing the deposition to go forward.
While the court recognizes that it may be costly for Mr.
Yadav to travel overseas, the court concludes that the costs
are proportional to the needs of this case, considering the
amount in controversy and the parties' resources. Second,
in Yardi's opposition to Entrata's motion, it has
articulated an adequate and reasonable need for Mr.
Yadav's deposition. Finally, as the court has stated
before, it will not entertain allegations about what may or
may not be occurring relative to the California Case.
Instead, the court is focused on the parties' actions in
this case.

Accordingly,
this motion is denied. Within thirty (30) days after the date
of this order, Entrata shall produce Mr. Yadav for a
deposition at a mutually agreeable date and time.

II.
Entrata's Motion for a Protective Order Regarding the
Deposition of Mr. Bateman

Entrata
seeks a protective order barring the deposition of Mr.
Bateman, who is the CEO of Entrata. Entrata argues that Mr.
Bateman possesses no unique, relevant information to this
case. Entrata also asserts, again, that Yardi is attempting
to depose Mr. Bateman in an attempt to “backdoor”
discovery in the California Case.

For the
following reasons, the court concludes that Entrata's
arguments are without merit. First, the court is unpersuaded
that Mr. Bateman, as Entrata's CEO, possesses no unique,
relevant information to this case. Quite the contrary, the
court concludes that Yardi has articulated an adequate and
reasonable need for Mr. Bateman's deposition. Second,
Entrata has failed to demonstrate, or even argue, that Mr.
Bateman's deposition is disproportional to the needs of
this case or ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.